6 ms·

There is a deep flaw in this logic. Person A and Person B are both investing the same amount, just in different forms. Person A converted their 100k into 1 ye

There is a deep flaw in this logic. Person A and Person B are both investing the same amount, just in different forms. Person A converted their 100k into 1 year of time. Person B converted their 1 year of time into 100k of money. They both put in 100k of something, B put in 100k worth of time, A put in 100k worth of money. If we assume a fair market rate for the conversion, then essentially this is a perfect exchange, and they both traded their different investments for exactly what they were worth. That is, the money invested, got back EXACTLY the amount of time it purchased, and the time invested got back EXACTLY the amount of money it purchased. Person A and B are trading things of equal value. This means they invested equally, and hence should split the reward equally.

vsl 7y ago
> and hence should split the reward equally Are you saying that when a company fails, all employees should return their past salaries paid by that company? Because that’s what splitting the (negative here) reward equally with investors would mean.
- alephu5 7y ago
  Yes, give the employees back the time they've spent and they'll refund the money.
- superqd 7y ago
  No, that doesn't mean that at all. If a company fails, investors don't have to return the time they've invested by putting in extra years of work, so it follows that those who invested time wouldn't return the money they received. Investor A puts in 100k of dollars, the company fails they've lost 100k worth of dollars. Worker B puts in 100k of time, the company fails, they've lost 100k worth of years. The point is, they are both risking equally, when compared in the same units, time or dollars, but not both. The investor is investing 100k worth of time, and the worker is also investing 100k worth of time. If the company fails, they have both lost that invested time.
  - nl 7y ago
    Investor A puts in 100k of dollars, the company fails they've lost 100k worth of dollars. Worker B puts in 100k of time, the company fails, they've lost 100k worth of years. This is complete nonsense. The worker has received $100k for their time and keeps that money. The investor has nothing. If you try to argue that the workers wage doesn't count for some reason, then you also should argue that the investor's time counts the same as the workers did. Either way the investors is worse off.
    - superqd 7y ago
      The investor is not the least bit worse off. He gains what the worker loses, and the worker gains what the investor loses. The worker gains the 100k, but the investor gains the extra year of work. That is, the investor, effectively, gets 2x the time they otherwise would have, because they traded some of their money for someone else's time. Whereas the worker has now lost 1 year, though they did gain 100k for the time they spent. If you do not believe that the investor is trading their 100k for something of equal value, then please demonstrate this. For it is this equality that underpins my argument. Saying the investor "has nothing" is naive, since, as with others, you are ignoring what they traded their dollars for.
      - nl 7y ago
        In your example, the company fails. The investor now has an investment in nothing, worth zero dollars. The worker has $100k.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
greggman2 7y ago
They are not equally invested. using your method Company fails A risked $100k money got 0. B risked $100k time got 100k money. A is now at -$100k B is at zero My guess it's you'll claim A got $100k of your time so A is at 0 as well but if we follow that logic in other places we can see how it doesn't work. A pays $10 for B to make a pie B pays $10 of time to make a pie A now resells pie for $20. A does not own B any percentage of profit. That's the business success case just replace "pie" with "business". Similarly A drops pie. B does not owe A a new pie. That's the business fail case. $B got their $10 money for their $10 of time. B's risk has now been paid for. A still has a risk, that they can sell the pie. Replace "drops pie" with "business fails".
- superqd 7y ago
  The problem is you missed the full comparison. Person A has not the time to invest into building the product, so they invest money, 100k's worth of dollars. Person B has not the money to invest into building the product, so they invest time, 100k's worth of time. So if we compare dollars in the event of company failure, we have: Person A is now at -100k Person B is now at 100k Person A is now at +1 years Person B is now at -1 years Again, this means they both invested equally. What is usually harder to see is the time investment. But Person A gains one year of work they did not have to do on the product (via their investment). Person B loses the year they invest/spend on the product. Purchasing a product does not imply joint ownership. Consumers do not partly own the profit of the Producer. However, if A and B decided to build a pie product together then yeah, they'd split the profits. Which is what is at stake here in this overall discussion: how should profits fairly get split when two or more parties contribute the resources to build it.
  - nl 7y ago
    This literally makes no sense, and it wrong even by your own math. Person A is now at -100k: Agreed Person B is now at 100k: Agreed Person A is now at +1 years: If you are valuing 1 year at 100k, then no - they are at zero years. They put in $100K over 1 year, so the two cancel each other out. Person B is now at -1 years: Again, they have been paid at the rate of $100K for 1 year, so they are at zero years. Again - I reject this "losing a year" thing. The investor hasn't gained a year at all - you can't lose or gain time. But if you value 1 year at 100K then they have paid for 1 year, but that means they have by-passed other opportunities. If they invest $100K in 2019 and the company goes bust in 2020 how have they gained a year? But even ignoring that (!!) your math doesn't work.

vsl 7y ago

> and hence should split the reward equally Are you saying that when a company fails, all employees should return their past salaries paid by that company? Because that’s what splitting the (negative here) reward equally with investors would mean.

alephu5 7y ago
Yes, give the employees back the time they've spent and they'll refund the money.
superqd 7y ago
No, that doesn't mean that at all. If a company fails, investors don't have to return the time they've invested by putting in extra years of work, so it follows that those who invested time wouldn't return the money they received. Investor A puts in 100k of dollars, the company fails they've lost 100k worth of dollars. Worker B puts in 100k of time, the company fails, they've lost 100k worth of years. The point is, they are both risking equally, when compared in the same units, time or dollars, but not both. The investor is investing 100k worth of time, and the worker is also investing 100k worth of time. If the company fails, they have both lost that invested time.
- nl 7y ago
  Investor A puts in 100k of dollars, the company fails they've lost 100k worth of dollars. Worker B puts in 100k of time, the company fails, they've lost 100k worth of years. This is complete nonsense. The worker has received $100k for their time and keeps that money. The investor has nothing. If you try to argue that the workers wage doesn't count for some reason, then you also should argue that the investor's time counts the same as the workers did. Either way the investors is worse off.
  - superqd 7y ago
    The investor is not the least bit worse off. He gains what the worker loses, and the worker gains what the investor loses. The worker gains the 100k, but the investor gains the extra year of work. That is, the investor, effectively, gets 2x the time they otherwise would have, because they traded some of their money for someone else's time. Whereas the worker has now lost 1 year, though they did gain 100k for the time they spent. If you do not believe that the investor is trading their 100k for something of equal value, then please demonstrate this. For it is this equality that underpins my argument. Saying the investor "has nothing" is naive, since, as with others, you are ignoring what they traded their dollars for.
    - nl 7y ago
      In your example, the company fails. The investor now has an investment in nothing, worth zero dollars. The worker has $100k.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

greggman2 7y ago

They are not equally invested. using your method Company fails A risked $100k money got 0. B risked $100k time got 100k money. A is now at -$100k B is at zero My guess it's you'll claim A got $100k of your time so A is at 0 as well but if we follow that logic in other places we can see how it doesn't work. A pays $10 for B to make a pie B pays $10 of time to make a pie A now resells pie for $20. A does not own B any percentage of profit. That's the business success case just replace "pie" with "business". Similarly A drops pie. B does not owe A a new pie. That's the business fail case. $B got their $10 money for their $10 of time. B's risk has now been paid for. A still has a risk, that they can sell the pie. Replace "drops pie" with "business fails".

superqd 7y ago
The problem is you missed the full comparison. Person A has not the time to invest into building the product, so they invest money, 100k's worth of dollars. Person B has not the money to invest into building the product, so they invest time, 100k's worth of time. So if we compare dollars in the event of company failure, we have: Person A is now at -100k Person B is now at 100k Person A is now at +1 years Person B is now at -1 years Again, this means they both invested equally. What is usually harder to see is the time investment. But Person A gains one year of work they did not have to do on the product (via their investment). Person B loses the year they invest/spend on the product. Purchasing a product does not imply joint ownership. Consumers do not partly own the profit of the Producer. However, if A and B decided to build a pie product together then yeah, they'd split the profits. Which is what is at stake here in this overall discussion: how should profits fairly get split when two or more parties contribute the resources to build it.
- nl 7y ago
  This literally makes no sense, and it wrong even by your own math. Person A is now at -100k: Agreed Person B is now at 100k: Agreed Person A is now at +1 years: If you are valuing 1 year at 100k, then no - they are at zero years. They put in $100K over 1 year, so the two cancel each other out. Person B is now at -1 years: Again, they have been paid at the rate of $100K for 1 year, so they are at zero years. Again - I reject this "losing a year" thing. The investor hasn't gained a year at all - you can't lose or gain time. But if you value 1 year at 100K then they have paid for 1 year, but that means they have by-passed other opportunities. If they invest $100K in 2019 and the company goes bust in 2020 how have they gained a year? But even ignoring that (!!) your math doesn't work.